objective moral values

[achilles12604]

By definition :

Objective : Grammar.
Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

Moral : mor·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-)
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

values : duh!


Based on these definitons, I am wondering if objective moral values even exist for an atheist. I do not mean to say that there are NO moral atheists. However, can atheists have objective moral values? What do they base there morals on? is a better way of asking the same question.

Since they deny any form of deity or religious structure, what do they base there morals on and furthermore, why are their morals correct instead of just the opposit being true?

[Sleepy]

All they have to do is set up an ethical frame work and stick to it.

Could you qualify for me. What is the authority behind that ethical framework that makes it objective?

[Simon's Legacy]

Sure. But authority is the wrong word. A set of objective moral values is the formal or standardized ethical concensus of any group of people who lay claim to a specific ethic. Any set of moral values that when listed by external observers in different times and circumstances would result in the same list...i.e. objective.
Note the original question asked if a certain group of people could hold objective moral values. 'What is the authority for moral values' is quite a different question, isn't it?
Must one have an 'authority' in order to have objective moral values? Of course not. One may, but one needn't.

[Sleepy]

formal or standardized ethical concensus of any group of people who lay claim to a specific ethic

I am guessing this is the answer.

Must one have an 'authority' in order to have objective moral values? Of course not. One may, but one needn't.

Of course you do, otherwise when questions over if the moral is objective you have nothing but subjectivity to base it on.

What is the objective measure of that 'specific ethic'? Hypothetically, what is the decider if for two neighbouring cultures, one group loves their neighbours and one group eats them?

You suggest that a culture has an ethical concensus having laid claim to a specific ethic. But that just removes the question one step further. When asking how an ethic is objective it will raise the 'Sez Who?' statement, in other words when questioning if something is objective you raise the question of 'by what authority is that objective'. The authority of the masses is not a good objective base because crowds can be influenced, all you are suggesting is the majority carry more authority because they 'shout louder' or 'have a bigger stick'. This is why theories such as those proposed by Kant grew up, they suggested an objective base by which an ethic can be measured such as reason, happiness, harm, love etc.

I think you have one choice for objective moral values as an atheist (the answer to the question from the OP), you have to base them in 'reason and science' as the ultimate objective authority for ethics. If God does not exist, then the only sources of objective truth is logic, history and scientific evidence.

Those are the authorities I would suggest provide objectivity without God, everything else becomes mere opinion even if it is the opinion of an entire culture.

[Simon's Legacy]

Of course you do, otherwise when questions over if the moral is objective you have nothing but subjectivity to base it on.

On the contrary. If the external observers consult their observations and find that, 'yep, that's one of their morals' then you have demonstrated that the moral was objective. Objectivity is not a contest. It's either there or it isn't.

What is the objective measure of that 'specific ethic'? Hypothetically, what is the decider if for two neighbouring cultures, one group loves their neighbours and one group eats them?

Can you see that those are two entirely different questions? Question 1: What is the objective measure?--it is the correlation between the observations of external observers. Question 2: What is the decider? Now the question is which has validity? Which has authority?. Or, as you indicate in your reference to Kant, what is the most sound method of building a moral framework? Surely grist for a different thread? No?

[Sleepy]

Of course you do, otherwise when questions over if the moral is objective you have nothing but subjectivity to base it on.

On the contrary. If the external observers consult their observations and find that, 'yep, that's one of their morals' then you have demonstrated that the moral was objective. Objectivity is not a contest. It's either there or it isn't.

The highlight in bold is a simplified version law of non-contradiction, it is based in reason and logic. Just because someone agrees with you does not make it objective, in your words 'Objectivity is not a (popularity) contest.

What is the objective measure of that 'specific ethic'? Hypothetically, what is the decider if for two neighbouring cultures, one group loves their neighbours and one group eats them?
Can you see that those are two entirely different questions?

That is why I asked them with a '?' after each one.

Question 1: What is the objective measure?--it is the correlation between the observations of external observers.

This is external subjective opinion on a moral, not objectivity.

Question 2: What is the decider? Now the question is which has validity? Which has authority?. Or, as you indicate in your reference to Kant, what is the most sound method of building a moral framework? Surely grist for a different thread? No?

Firstly for validity you bring up logic as the source of objectivity. Secondly you point to which has authority as an indicator of higher objectivity, well you prove my point, the authority is key to objectivity.

[Grumpy]

Sleepy

All morals are subjective and change as the society that holds them change. Some(murder/stealing/etc.)are fairly universal and change little. Some(slavery, say) change only very violently. Some(drinking, use of various other drugs)change with the opinions of the majority.

Grumpy

[Simon's Legacy]

Thanks for recognizing the law of non-contradiction. It would help if we could also prohibit the practice of bait and switch. There are two separate issues here--objectivity and authority. They are not the same and one can get lost if we shuffle them around in a shell game. Something is 'objective' if many people can observe it and produce the same description. Something is authoritative if it serves (in your words) as the 'decider' when a choice or decision or an interpretation must be made.
Authority and objectivity are definitely not the same thing and should not be confused with each other.
Perhaps, if you wish, to set it in moral terms consider a trial by jury. The prosecution and the defense attempt to present the evidence in the case. They describe the evidence. They bring in witnesses to descibe the evidence. Then the jury is asked to weigh the evidence-was it credible? was it consistent? are we all in agreement about what we have observed? That's the objective part. Then comes the part where they are asked to render a judgement. Was the person guilty or not guilty? That's the authority part.

[Sleepy]

Sleepy

All morals are subjective and change as the society that holds them change. Some(murder/stealing/etc.)are fairly universal and change little. Some(slavery, say) change only very violently. Some(drinking, use of various other drugs)change with the opinions of the majority.

Grumpy

Precisely my point Grumpy. You need to appeal to an outside authority if you can claim objectivity. Some do so in science, some in logic and some in history.

[Sleepy]

Thanks for recognizing the law of non-contradiction. It would help if we could also prohibit the practice of bait and switch. There are two separate issues here--objectivity and authority. They are not the same and one can get lost if we shuffle them around in a shell game. Something is 'objective' if many people can observe it and produce the same description. Something is authoritative if it serves (in your words) as the 'decider' when a choice or decision or an interpretation must be made.
Authority and objectivity are definitely not the same thing and should not be confused with each other.
Perhaps, if you wish, to set it in moral terms consider a trial by jury. The prosecution and the defense attempt to present the evidence in the case. They describe the evidence. They bring in witnesses to descibe the evidence. Then the jury is asked to weigh the evidence-was it credible? was it consistent? are we all in agreement about what we have observed? That's the objective part. Then comes the part where they are asked to render a judgement. Was the person guilty or not guilty? That's the authority part.

The trial by jury is not a good illustration, in choosing a jury you try and select people with no previous interest in the matter at hand and they are asked to interpret the law. The law is the 'authority' without which there would be no jury.

[Simon's Legacy]

No, the law is not the authority. The law is only the standard. The jury is the authority. It derives its authority from the constitution and the state which, in turn, derives its authority from the citizens. The jury is asked to 'render a verdict' not 'tell us what the law is' i.e. they are given the responsibility to act as the authority. They are not asked to interpret the law. They are not allowed to do that. They are asked to interpret the facts--i.e. to 'weigh the evidence'. That is exactly the basis of objectivity--what is it that we all agree that we see here? Having come to an agreement about the evidence, they must then excercise their authority by returning a verdict.